Identity and persistence through change: SMM/DTT and Neutral monism and Russellian monism

01The question behind the comparison

Persistence is the relation by which an object or person continues despite change. In SMM/DTT, a world generated through successive completions invites a pattern-based account: what persists may be a stable organization and its inherited history rather than an unchanged material token. This is a promising way to connect renewed creation with ordinary identity. It also raises a precise question: which continuities are sufficient, and how are rival successors distinguished?

Physical, functional and personal identity need not use the same criterion. A repaired instrument can remain the same instrument through replacement of parts. A mathematical pattern can have many identical copies. A person’s identity involves bodily continuity, memory, commitments and first-person perspective in ways that philosophers contest. Calling all of these retained information does not settle the disagreement. Two copies may carry the same stored information while having different locations and future experiences. A source theory must therefore distinguish qualitative resemblance from numerical identity.

The six nested levels could help articulate a hierarchy of persistence conditions: lower distinctions support relations, relations support an organized readout, and completed records support a history. But the architecture does not automatically establish personal survival or an immortal psychical carrier. Such claims need their own arguments. A physically useful account would first identify stable equivalence classes of generated configurations and the transitions that preserve them. A philosophical account would then ask whether those equivalence classes capture the kind of identity at issue.

02The single-source and nested-time proposal

SMM begins with one nonspatial generative source. DTT distinguishes its inner production from the outer order in which completed results become accessible. The six inner levels are nested functional dependencies within that production; the seventh denotes outer completion. They are not six independent clocks, six spatial directions, or six simultaneously occupied temporal axes. This distinction makes the framework more specific than a general claim that everything changes: it asks how a world of persistent relations can be generated before its spatial representation is taken for granted. ^[2]

03The comparator’s explanatory structure

Neutral monism seeks a basis that is not intrinsically classified as either mental or physical, allowing those categories to arise through organization or description. Russell’s Analysis of Mind supplies a primary historical account. Contemporary Russellian monism concerns what the intrinsic nature of the properties described by physics might be; it is a family of views and should not be treated as identical with historical neutral monism.

The useful comparison is about explanatory gaps. A table of physical relations can predict behavior while leaving open how those relations are instantiated or why experience occurs. Calling their basis neutral can mark that openness without resolving it. SMM/DTT gives the common basis a more specific generative role: it proposes a source that produces differentiated records. The additional architecture becomes explanatory only if it constrains the relation between the physical description and the psychical perspective. One common label for both is insufficient. Distinctive bridge principles, rather than the mere presence of monism, determine the theory’s content. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

Neutral monism can understand persistence through stable relations among underlying events rather than through a separately enduring mental or material substance. DTT adds a proposed source law that generates those relations across completions. The common strength is flexibility: physical continuity and experiential continuity can be investigated without assuming in advance that they must belong to two unrelated entities.

The difficulty is that different relations support different identities. A record can preserve content, a body can preserve causal organization and a person can preserve commitments, while these continuities sometimes diverge. DTT should therefore avoid declaring that all persistence is simply the same memory. A neutral-monist framework makes room for several organizational descriptions, but still needs a bridge connecting them. The source architecture can contribute by specifying which relations are preserved together and why. The comparison becomes especially useful in copying cases: shared information may continue while numerical identity branches. A rigorous DTT account would distinguish this branching from ordinary renewal, giving persistence a criterion stronger than resemblance and more explicit than an appeal to one common origin. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

Suppose a notebook is copied perfectly, including its history. The copies are qualitatively identical at the copying moment, but one can later be edited while the other remains unchanged. They are therefore two objects with a shared informational ancestor. If a renewal theory identified identity with data alone, it would have difficulty distinguishing them. Adding causal lineage helps: each successor has a particular relation to the copying event. For persons, however, lineage alone may still leave questions about subjecthood. The example shows why memory is essential to a persistence account without making memory a complete definition of identity.

06What this comparison contributes

A strong SMM/DTT account can make persistence a lawful achievement of generation. It should state which features are conserved, how successors inherit them and what counts as interruption. This has value even without settling every metaphysical dispute: it clarifies what a generated world must preserve to support stable objects and accountable histories. Comparisons then become concrete disagreements about identity criteria rather than vague contrasts between static substances and flowing processes.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Renewal and persistence: why a changing world can keep a history →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of identity.

• source and memory →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of identity.

• Eliminating hidden variables creates memory →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of identity.

• The 'Chest' of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of identity.

• Time Chest →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of identity.